-
8/13/2019 Eurykleia and Odysseus' Scar: Odyssey 19.393-466
1/3
Eurykleia and Odysseus' Scar: Odyssey 19.393-466Author(s): Irene
J. F. de JongSource: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 35,
No. 2 (1985), pp. 517-518Published by: Cambridge University Presson
behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/639080.
Accessed: 10/01/2014 09:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available
at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
.
Cambridge University Pressand The Classical Associationare
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014
09:26:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/639080?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/639080?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup
-
8/13/2019 Eurykleia and Odysseus' Scar: Odyssey 19.393-466
2/3
ClassicalQuarterly5 (ii) 517-530(1985)PrintednGreatBritain
517
SHORTER NOTESEURYKLEIA AND ODYSSEUS' SCAR: ODYSSEY
19.393-466
In this article I shall argue for an interpretationof Odyssey
19.393-466 as a flash-backtaking place in the mind of Eurykleia at
the moment she recognises Odysseus' scar.That Eurykleiasomehow
forms the connection between main story and digressionhasbeen
suggested before,1but so far other interpretationshave been
defended with morefervour.
Most famous of these interpretations is the one given by E.
Auerbach in the firstchapterof his Mimesis.2He had chosen
19.393-466 to illustratehis thesis that in Homereverything is
'fully externalized' and that there is no background, only a
'uniformlyilluminated' foreground. According to Auerbach the
digression on the scar stands incomplete isolation to its context.
It is meant to 'relax the tension', to make thehearer/reader
'forget what hadjust takenplace duringthe footwashing', and
althoughit might have been presented as a recollection of Odysseus
(by inserting the story'two verses earlier, at the first mention of
the word scar'), this 'subjectivistic-perspectivistic procedure,
creating a foreground and background' was not chosen,being
'entirely foreign to the Homeric style'.Some twenty years later
this interpretation was challenged by A. K6hnken,3 who,however,
stuck to the idea that the digressionis not told from the
restrictedperspectiveof one of the charactersbut from the
perspectiveof the omniscient narrator;he claimsthat foreground and
background are marked as such through a differencein
narrativestyle: 'berichtende Erzdihlung' or the digression itself
and 'szenische Darstellung' forthe context. I disagree with both
points. To begin with the latter, the digression ispresented just
as 'scenically' (direct speech being included) as the context. As
to thefirst point, I suggest that the digression is presented in
connection with one of thecharacters: not Odysseus, but
Eurykleia.The point of departure for this interpretation is the
repeated ()yv?, (both timeswith the scar asobject), which
introduces (392) and caps (468) the passage 19.393-466:this
position of the digression, wedged in between two references to
mental activityby Eurykleia suggests that we interpret it as her
recollection triggered off by therecognition of the scar. The next
step, of course, must be to explain how Eurykleiacan have at her
disposal the information contained in the digression. In line 401
weare explicitly informed that she was presentat the starting point
of the whole episode,the arrival of Autolykos in Ithaca. She even
played an active role, handing over thechild 'Odysseus' to his
grandfatherand asking him to give it a name. At this
importantmoment she takes the place of Odysseus' parents, whose
presence only becomes clearat the moment Autolykos gives his answer
and addresses them, instead of Eurykleia(406). On the basis of
these verses 401-4 and other passages4we can safely infer that1H.
Sauter,Die BeschreibungenHomersund ihredichterischeFunktion(diss.
Tiibingen, 1953),pp. 42ff. and F. Miller, Darstellung
undpoetischeFunktionder Gegenstiindender Odyssee (diss.Marburg,
1968),pp. 33-4. Miiller refers to Sauterfor arguments.Sauter,
however, only explainswhy it is Eurykleia (and not Antikleia or
Laertes) who recognises the scar.
2 Engl. translation Princeton, 1953, 3-23.3 Antike und Abendland
22 (1976), 101-14. He convincingly shows that the digression
servesan important function within the whole recognition-scene (pp.
102-8), is placed effectively afterthe recognition, but beforeits
effect(108), and does not stand in isolation from its context
(109-12).4 For Eurykleia's ositionof highhonour n Laertes'household
ee 1.432: aa s /tV KESvf&A6Xw LEv(Laertes) 'v LEYipotUV. She
had taken care of Odysseusand nurturedhim rightafterhis birth
(19.354-5) and considered him 'her own child' (19.363, 474:
rEKVOV,92 r4KVOV lO6v).Confirmed by Odysseus: 19.482-3.
This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014
09:26:56 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/13/2019 Eurykleia and Odysseus' Scar: Odyssey 19.393-466
3/3
518 SHORTER NOTESEurykleia was also present at the end of the
episode, viz. Odysseus' returnto Ithaca(462-6), although here only
the parents are mentioned.These same lines 462-6 explain her
detailed knowledge of what happened betweenthe beginning and end of
the episode, Odysseus' adventures abroad. The young herois asked
about everything (ErEpELtvov&7Tav7a)nd he gives a detailed
report (EvKa~EAE6EV).5omparable explanations of how a character can
narrate something hehas not witnessed himself are Odyssey 10.249-60
(these lines explain how Odysseuscan narrate to Alkinoos the things
reported in 10.210-43; compare 10.249EEpEOVrES9and 250 KarAEMEVwith
the similar expressions in 19.463 and 464) and 12.389-90(these
lines explain how Odysseus can narrate to Alkinoos (374-88) the
conversationbetween Helios and Zeus).On the other hand, if the
digression on the scar is supposed to be told from theperspective
of the (omniscient) narrator, as Auerbach and K6hnken suggest,
suchdetails as given in 401 and 463-4 are superfluous (the
observation that 465-6 forma ring-composition with 393-4 does not
in itself explain the preceding verses 463-4).Again, the mention of
thejoy at Odysseus' returnhome (463) also indicates a personalpoint
of view. With Odyssey 19.393-466 we are dealing with one of the
rare longpassages where the point of view of a character is
representedin the narrativeinsteadof being expressed directly by
the character in the form of a speech. The reason forthis
exceptional case can be found easily in the context: Penelope is
not supposed tonotice what goes on between Odysseus and Eurykleia
and the story of the scar musttherefore be presented as a mental
flash-back, not as a speech. Compare 24.331-5,where the origin of
the scar is told again, this time in direct speech by a
character:Odysseus himself.I submit that this interpretation of
19.393-466, together with the arguments givenby K6hnken (see my
note 3), forms a convincing refutation of Auerbach's
thesisconcerning Homeric narration.University of Amsterdam IRENE J.
F. DE JONG
5The mportancef theseverses soverlooked yC.Whitman,Homer nd
heHeroicTradition(Harvard,1958),119: Homersimplydramatizes er(sc.
Eurykleia's)mental mage,completewith speeches and even the
boar-hunt, which ncidentally he could nothave witnessed'(my
italics)andK6hnken,op. cit., p. 113,n. 48: 'OdysseusundEurykleia
aben edernureinenTeil desin ExkursBerichteten
irektmiterlebt,derErzihlerbraucht ir seine Zweckedie
Erinnerungbeider zusammengenommen'.6 Iampreparingmonographwhere
ases ike heseareanalysednterms fmodern emioticalnarratology.
havealreadymadeanextended tudyof a groupof cases n
FokalisationnddieHomerischenGleichnisse,to appear in Mnemosyne
1985.
AN UNNOTICED MS OF ORPHIC HYMNS 76-7Because of an incomplete
description of its contents,' it has escaped notice that
thefifteenth-century vellum MS Parisinus graecus 2833 contains
Orphic Hymns 76 and1 In H. Omont, Inventairesommairedes
manuscritsgrecs de la BibliothequeNationale
(Paris,1886-98).ThecontentsareTheocritus,d.cumschol.;theHomericHymns;Moschus,Love
heRunaway; Musaeus, Hero and Leander; (Orpheus), Hymns 76-7;
'Proclus', Prolegomena toHesiod (fol. 92 recto); Hesiod, Works and
Days, Shield, Theogony; Dionysius Periegetes;Theognis;
pseudo-)Phocylides.. Cissola, Inniomerici Milan,1975),606 n. 2
remarks hatMS 2833 is in the samehand as Ambrosianus 34(S 31
sup.)and Laurentianus2.4,a handformerlydentified s that of
JohnRhosus,butnotin facthis(R. Pfeiffer,CallimachusOxford,1953], i.
lxiv). It is in fact thatof DemetriosDamilas later15th o
early16thcentury), ince
This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Fri, 10 Jan 2014
09:26:56 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
